What FDR really said about public employee unions

I know some conservatives have used a quote by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as “proof” that even FDR was opposed to public employee unions, but let’s take a look at the full context of what FDR said about public employee unions, so that we can fully understand his thoughts on public employee unions (emphasis mine):

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. [. . .]

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

However, this quote is also taken out of context in the sense that it still does NOT include the whole of Pres. Roosevelt’s thought. The sentence has been left incomplete with an ellipse ending it abruptly when he is speaking of what measures must be considered if government employees are going to create a union. Nice way to combat incomplete thoughts with more incomplete thoughts.

Then where is the part of Roosevelts thoughts after the ellipse??? If there are none, Then You cannot assume he is talking about what specific measures must be considered if government employees are going to create a union, simply because he did not say that. That is your opinion about what you think he will say next..
All he is saying is that meticulous attention must be paid to the relationship of public servants to the public itself and to government, and in light of that he then goes on to say that government employees cannot strike against the government ( they have no union at this point) in order to get what they want. That would be intolerable, said Roosevelt, and that was precisely my point with the Teachers walking out and calling in sick and getting false sick notes from doctors on the protest line. They lied to get what they wanted and then return to school and tell their pupils not to lie. Unbelievable! It was in violation of their contract not to strike ( this was a defacto strike-a walkout) And that was something Roosevelt was totally against. That, my dear, is why he did not want employee unions for government workers because he feared they would do the same things as the private sector unions and attack and shut down the very government they were sworn to uphold. That is why Reagan shut down the airline unions and hired new workers when they went on strike. Sorry, but we have had our fill of the arrogance of the unions. We have excellent public workers in our city, but their cause is not being well served by the mess they are creating. Public employees are paid by taxpayers and taxpayers in the private sector have been going through pay cuts, vacation cuts and still have to pay full premiums for health care and their full pension premiums .We cannot afford the full payment of wages and benefits anymore for government workers and now they are hell bent on recalling Governor Walker. This is what Roosevelt feared. Public unionized employees obstructing the government they serve until they get what they want. These recalls are paralyzing Wisconsin with their anger, bitterness and discontent. Some are acting like two year olds with a temper tantrum. At least teachers were able to take those pay cuts and put them back into their pensions and health care premiums which private sector workers cannot do. It is time to set aside this animosity, anger and bitterness and work together like we do here in our city. There are much more pressing problems on the way. Next year will be even worse according to many economists. If you think you have it hard now, just wait until the next few years. This time will seem tame by comparison. There will be no more free luches at taxpayer expense. The private sector will be even more decimated. We will all have to cut back and curtail spending and help each other out no matter what you think Roosevelt said, no matter if you are Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. We must work together because hard times are upon us and worse times are coming.

“…as usually understood” in no way negates Roosevelt’s strong statement in favor of public employee unions. Roosevelt issued his “particular,” that “militant” tactics, which he defines as strikes, are not acceptable to him, and he notes that the federal employees union constitution states that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Roosevelt is defending the status quo, but Roosevelt at no time did what Walker did in Wisconsin, which was to unilaterally dismantle the agreement between labor and government that had substantially been in effect for decades.

You can’t say that Roosevelt was against unions did in Wisconsin, because Roosevelt had not seen a circumstance similar to what happened in Wisconsin. Chances are very good that he would have seen it as a betrayal on the part of a partner.

Pesky edits.
“You can’t say that Roosevelt was against unions did” should read “was against what unions did, and “he would have seen it as a betrayal” should read “he would have seen Walker’s actions as a betrayal…”

Since you are a history buff you already know that Blogging Blue left out the part of FDR’s letter which stated that “All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service”. Probably just an oversight on the part of Blogging Blue.

I am miffed as well that you take a “section” out of Roosevelt’s speech and declare that he meant to support public unions. He said that he realizes that public employees would want the same protections as private workers, which you underlined, yet the very next word is “but”…Then he goes on to describe that militant tactics have no place in the function of Government employees ( Exactly what is happening in Wisconsin at the capitol in Madison and when teachers statewide walked out) He then says that these government employees are to serve all of society, whose interest and welfare require orderliness ( Not the disorder and protesting and Senate Democrat Senators leaving the state of Wisconsin, to obstruct the Government and shut it down-preventing it from functioning) the very thing that Roosevelt feared has now happened in Wisconsin by workers entrusted with serving the public taxpayer. My kids being out of school did not serve the taxpayer but the individual interests of the public worker, somethiing Roosevelt believed was intolerable and should not happen at all costs.
He further says that if they have collective bargaining, and it fails, a strike by employees is nothing less on their part than to Obstruct Government until their demands are met.( protests during work hours in Madison) Such paralysis by those meant to support it (the closing of many schools across the state and threats of a strike by a 11,000 member public employee union) Roosevelt said was unthinkable and intolerable.
Do you really think that Roosevelt allowed collective bargaining for Federal Employees? That would really be re-writing history!
He understood Governments role and the workers role. However, we have so poorly educated our children in public schools that they have no idea what Roosevelt is saying along with many adults who have already graduated. We have poured Hundreds of Billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars into our public schools and teacher wages and benefits, only to see the US drop from number 1 in the World in Education, to anywhere from 24th to 27th in science and math and total overall scores. That’s what collective bargaining has done to our puiblic Institutions. There is no incentive for teachers to improve their teaching as there is no threat of being fired for poor performance as there is in the private sector.
I will no longer take food out of the mouths of my children to pay for teachers making 2-3 times what we make plus their benefits,totaling $70,000 to $125,000 per year. There are 615 teachers and administrators in our district and there are over 424 school districts. You do the math. We have over 350 foreclosed homes in our community, wage cuts,vacation cuts, wage freezes, layoffs and two large company closings that are killing us, and teachers and public employees want more increases in salary and benefits?
Many of us work at $8-$10 per hour jobs and are barely making it ourselves. Public employee unions told Governor elect Walker to take a hike barely two months ago in December, and called a special session with Gov. Doyle to negotiate raises in wages and benefits even tho we can’t afford it, and Walker asked them to wait, and take a 5.8% pay cut put into pensions, and a 12% increase in health care costs. Now they want to negotiate only because they stand to lose it all.Otherwise they would not have negotiated at all, and now accuse Governor Walker of not negotiating. Amazing. Hypocrisy and lies are the New World Order of the day.
I am sorry, but I cannot supprt your cause, It will only lead to anarchy. One student at the protests works for Noodles, and says that his boss is a Dictator because he tells him what noodles to serve, how to serve them, and when to report to work. he says that workers need to unite to overthrow this dictator so employees can run the company. He is not alone. Would you want that to happen to you if you started a company?
One last thing. The protests in Madison may be somewhat orderly, but they are anything but peaceful. When you are spit on, sworn at, given the finger, and told to get F***** and go home or else you will be cut up, when an elderly gentle man with you has his cane deliberately pushed out from under him, and a Fox News reporter is surrounded and puched, has his microphone knocked out of his hands, and has obscenities yelled at him while chants of “Fox is a liar” ring in his ears, and police do nothing when notified… are you really going to tell me that this is what Roosevelt meant when said that public servants are sworn to serve the public and are now paralyzing the Government of that same public?
This is exactly why Roosevelt did not allow public employees of the government to collective bargain and be representated by unions. Their power destroys government because those unions give money to officials running for government, and when they win, reward them with lucrative bargaining contracts which they are the prime negotiators of. Corruption in government must end or our society will fall. You will see it with your own eyes very soon.

Ah, nuts.
I was with your correction regarding FDR all the way and then you went and said:
“There is no incentive for teachers to improve their teaching as there is no threat of being fired for poor performance as there is in the private sector.”
If you don’t believe in self-actualization then you are missing the point of living. If you think that the only way to improve is to be fearful of retribution then you think the worst of mankind.
I was with you on all the excesses that can be found when management is weak and cannot confront an overbearing union until you said:”I am sorry, but I cannot support your cause, It will only lead to anarchy.” If you think that organized labor leads to anarchy then you think less of a group of people than of the limitations of a single mind.If you think that collective baragaining is the cause of bad behavior then you have failed to understand that the individual is responsibe for his/her actions and you fail to understand how they are reinforced by like-minded members of a group and also suppressed by opposite-minded members of a group.
You have many great points but you lost me because you don’t comprehend how the individual acts in a group. It does not matter if it is a Tea Party, Congress, an extremist church, or an eco-terrorist organization.
I get your point between orderly and peaceful but you have to agree that it is nonviolent and largely not threatening. Not 100%, of course, but largely not threatening. Although any one of us can find single incidences to remonstrate against, for the emotional content of stripping rights from workers, this is a nonviolent event.
I do not like your insinuation that the police are doing nothing.While it is true that the police are not hauling off the rude and boorish among the protestors, I hearken back to the 60s and can attest that hamhanded efforts by police to threaten crowds does not lead to a more nonviolent and peaceful demonstration.
Ah, nuts. I was with you until I was against you.

Individuals in a group tend toward the lesser part of humanity–it is called ‘mob rule’. Also, ‘self-actualization’ might make you sound intelligent but is, in fact, just another one of the liberal code words. People will always tend towards laziness unless there is a motivator behind them–it seems obvious to me that you don’t have even the basic grasp of human psychology . . .

No Jeffrey, you have obviously never had a job that you were so good at that you enjoyed the hell out of it. The compulsion to shine in the eyes of both employer and customer is the best of what free enterprise is about. The wonderful feeling that accrues when having excited and enlightened students is the kind of thing that makes life worth living. Worker solidarity is another way of feeling proud and empowered. Public employees have the right to organize and strike until jailed or struck dead if their cause is just.

Well said, but, never-the-less, of the art of the Rhetoricist. Any “protest” of the public at large is required to fall under the albeit vague qualification of a “peaceable assembly.” We would both agree, I’m positive, that, given any indication that the powers-that-be have ceased to uphold our Constitution, that definition is rendered irrelevant. Of course FDR was aware of your fluffy definition of the human condition…and I’d certainly shirk from the Hobbesian Leviathan, but humankind needs stop-gap hierarchical logic to prevent anarchy. Unions were originally a rejection of inflicted harm: child labor, black lung and other environmental illness, 20-hour days, zero future stability, zero upward mobility….WE ALL GET THAT!!! Unions in 2012 bear little resemblance to Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” Today, Unions demand eternal security, free pension, free health care, triple the standard of living….Bolshevism, in short…A demand to be treated like kings and queens. Government Unions are infinitely worse. In a private company, if the demands cannot be met, and the profits do not exist to be re-allocated to the beknighted Unions, the company goes bankrupt….unless, that is, the government rewards this greed with a bailout at the behest of the taxpayer….WITH PUBLIC UNIONS, both the management AND the labor force are TAXPAYER EMPLOYEES inventing their own wage expectations and planned vacations WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF GOING BANKRUPT!!!!! In other words, as the taxpayer, we are forced to watch two groups of OUR EMPLOYEES argue over how much of OUR MONEY they’ll require to maintain their utopian lifestyle. THAT’S why even FDR knew public unions were an oxymoronic notion.

The skipped content in no way negates Roosevelt’s strong statement in favor of public employee unions. Roosevelt issued his “particular,” that “militant” tactics, which he defines as strikes, are not acceptable to him, and he notes that the federal employees union constitution states that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Roosevelt is defending the status quo, but Roosevelt at no time did what Walker did in Wisconsin, which was to unilaterally dismantle the agreement between labor and government that had substantially been in effect for decades.

You can’t say that Roosevelt was against what unions did in Wisconsin, because Roosevelt had not seen a circumstance similar to what happened in Wisconsin. Chances are very good that he would have seen Walker’s action as a betrayal on the part of a partner.

Mr. Plautz — “This is exactly why Roosevelt did not allow public employees of the government to collective bargain and be representated by unions.”

Roosevelt did not say he opposed collective bargaining, and the federal union did, in fact, bargain collectively. You accuse others of skipping text, but you overlook what Roosevelt clearly meant when he said he opposed collective bargaining “as usually understood.”

“As usually understood” meant strikes, as Roosevelt made very clear in all of the following text. He even quotes the federal union (which did bargain collectively) where its constitution states that strikes are not part of the process.

“As usually understood” simply meant that, and it is part and parcel of his entire statement.

But again — Roosevelt had not encountered any situation similar to Wisconsin’s, where government unilaterally ended its agreed-to terms with labor, breaking an agreement that was entered into via collective bargaining. The Wisconsin strike was against the betrayal of a trust that government had already entered into. You can’t say Roosevelt would have been against the state worker’s union in that conflict.

I am not sure who you were responding to,billyboy, so I posted this previous e-mail to “clarify” my position, if that is what you are looking for. Apparently Roosevelt’s words “in or out of context” do not mean the same to everybody. One believes they only refer to strikes, and another to collective bargaining which would lead to strikes when there was a stalemate in negotiations. Either way, Roosevelt believed that any government paralysis by employees shutting down the government was unthinkable and intolerable.

Previous post in response to partiallyblue

I had to chuckle when I read your reply ,you were against me anyway, you were just looking for points of disagreement, so you didn’t have to accept what I said. I agreed with some of your comments, but not others. That’s just how it is. But I think we could disagree and still be good friends if we knew each other. My brother is a staunch union democrat and we disagree all the time, but we still eat Thanksgiving together. That’s what is more important anyway. Same with my friend on City Council.
Just take my comments that you didn’t agree with, throw them out, use the ones you agreed with, and accept Franklin Roosevelt’s comments for what they are, and historically, what he did to implement them.

I used to work for CF trucking under the Teamsters union and saw firsthand the non-self-actualization of workers who were protected by the union and guaranteed 40 hour work weeks. As a whole, the workforce became lazy because they all received similar pay and there was no incentive to help motivate them. They did not motivate themselves other than to show up and sometimes do the minimal amount expected. They were so bored one Saturday night, they shrink-wrapped me to the railing around shift end at 8am to slow me down from attending church that morning. The boss set me free. It can happen in many large group settings where workers influence one another with their attitudes for good or bad. I saw it at Alkar Rapid Pak in Lodi as well. I did not buy into it because it just drags you down, but many workers were just putting in their time because they “had it made” in their eyes, until the company was bought out, wages froze, and over 200 laid off.
The anarchy I was talking about is the young man who works for “Noodles” who was at the protests and said that his boss was a dictator and the employees needed to take over the company, if the employer didn’t give in to their demands. That is the anarchy I was talking about, not organized labor in the private sector. They have helped us in many ways providing vacations, 8 hour days, a 40 hour work week, health care etc. I don’t believe public employee unions are in the best interests of government taxpayers. On city council, we have to always propose wage increases and benefit increases even though we cannot afford it, because if/when it goes to arbitration, we will always lose if we propose what we can afford, which some years has been a zero percent increase. That young fellow from Noodles was upset that he had no control because he had to serve the noodles the company told him to, be there at a certain time, and follow company rules he didn’t agree with. Others felt the same way. It was their attitudes I was referring to, and their “rights” as workers to overthrow the company. They stated they were standing for the workers.
I know how an individual acts in a group. We went on strike a couple of times at CF in Milwaukee and I was one of only a few who did not support it, but went out with the group anyway. When people are faced with losing something they feel they deserve or are entitled to after years of service ( as CF employees did with wages/benefits or teachers) it riles up strong emotions in everyone who is like minded, and individuals feed off each other as strikers at CF or teachers who walked off the job collectively as individuals. I would not want to take a wage cut either, but as a public employee, I cannot push to increase my salary on the backs of overburdened taxpayers in my town who are losing their homes and working at $8-$10 hourly jobs, many two full time jobs, just to barely scrape by. They are the ones paying my salary and if they don’t have it, who am I to raid their pockets. God will provide anyway as we trust in Him.

Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your views. I am currently studying for children’s ministry through an online Bible school and will earn my masters in two years. I may not earn a lot of money-I will be at the mercy and goodwill of the congregation, but I will be doing something I love. God bless you and have a good day. Hopefully they will resolve this soon in Madison. That’s what we are praying for.

The fact is, teachers are human. They’re frustrated. I don’t know those in WI. Supposedly they are paid better than average. I do know that teachers here in NC have been shafted year after year and many are wondering why they do it anymore. It is a thankless job save for the occasional student who shows appreciation. Their jobs are far more demanding than any white collar job I’ve ever known. (16 hours days +weekends are common).

What I really cannot understand is how everyone jumps on teachers when in reality — all of this strife we’re experiencing today – 100% of it, the housing mess, the economic mess, the lost pensions – all of it – was caused by greedy bankers on Wallstreet and those complicit in helping them pull it off.

Don’t roll your eyes.

The problem is – NO ONE seems to give a damn. My theory is it’s because you don’t know who to go after and you’re scared because these are powerful rich people who could pay to off you in a second. And so, we go after each other, the common people, because its easier and we better understand who is responsible for what.

The fact is: it’s sad. Everyone in America making less than $60k is getting screwed harder and harder every year. No one fights back. The class war being waged by the rich is real. This is a game to those making $100 millions. Monopoly. They don’t care about you. Their money is protected and propagated by the media which is used to convince you the real problem is not greed amongst the wealthy – those poor wealthy who work sooo haaarrd to make their living (what a joke) – the issue is jealous lefties, whatever that means. I mean, I never got a job from a POOR person. No – but I never got a job from a multi-millionaire either.

We the People wrk 3x as hard and make 1/100 as much. Our taxes pay for all government jobs. Our government should be for us. It’s not. We basically have taxation without representation. And you settle for it.

We should be raising pitchforks on Wallstreet and the Whitehouse. Instead, we tear at each other.

Hey greg.
I am on City council, so I don’t settle for anything. I work to try to make a better life for everyone in our city, not just for union employees. During negotiations, our hands are tied. When the union proposes a 6% wage increase, we must peopose a reasonable pay increase, say 3%, even though we can only afford 1%. Why? Because if/when we reach a stalemate and it goes to the Arbitration Judge, he will rule for the unions if our proposal is too low. The Judge is also not allowed to take the City’s/County’s/School Boards financial situation into consideration. That became a State law a few years ago under Democrat Governor Jim Doyle and the Democrat majority as a payback to the unions that supported them in their campaigns. Government is supposed to be for the taxpayers, as you said, not for the unions. Government is also not to be for the rich at the expense of the taxpayers they were elected to serve. Government entities are now forced to give increases to public employees even though we cannot afford to.
The teachers in our town of 11,500 people average $45,000 to $48,000 per year plus $20,000 to $25,000 in benefits. ( $65,000 to $68,000 yearly). Principals are from $88,000 to $110,000 plus $36,000 to $40,000 in yearly benefits. ( $125,000 to $150,000 yearly). We taxpayers pay for all of it, and average $35,000 in wages and benefits combined.
We have 615 active teachers, principals, district employees, janitors,business managers etc. Plus I don’t know how many retirees. A rough estimate of the last ten years is 100. Imagine the yearly bill if each one gets $50,000 to $65,000 average pay, even retirees, from people earning a lot less than them at $24,000 to $36,000 yearly. That means a lower economic class is supporting a higher economic class with our tax dollars from our paychecks. That is wrong. The poor/lower middle class are supporting the rich in this case. We have a lot less wealthy folk in town, but they pay their property taxes, and state and local taxes just like us. The teachers are one of the higher economic classes here. Dentists and doctors are higher. Business owners after them.
Now, That’s just our smaller school district with 615 employees, one of the lower paid ones. We have 424 school districts in Wisconsin, Teachers retire with pensions that pay $4,100 per month or $50,000 a year plus health benefits too! I worked at Consolidated Freight and can retire after 30 years with a Teamster pension of only $3,000 per month, or $36,000 per year, and that is considered high for the private sector in Wisconsin. So, I make $36,000 pension per year and have to pay teacher’s their $50,000 pension each year from my lower pension. Most pensions here in the private sector are individual, 100% employee funded, 401 K, (not 90% to 100%taxpayer funded for teacher.) and our pensions pay out maybe $2,000 per month or $24,000 per year. Others $15,000 to $18,000 per year, compared to the teachers $50,000 per year. And that’s not counting our county/city employees and sheriff’s department, police and fire employees, and equipment, such as squad cars, ladder trucks, water pumpers, guns, ammunition,training, uniforms,etc.
Other Wisconsin school districts are much higher with teacher salaries from $80,000 to $ 95,000 plus $30,000 to $36,000 in benefits or $110,000 to $131,000 yearly compensation) That doesn’t include higher principals and administrators salaries and benefits. Without teachers income included, the average income in our town is $35,000 INCLUDING benefits; much lower than teachers at $68,000 including benefits.Here in our town, we have had nearly 500 home foreclosures in the last two years, two company closings, two companies froze wages the last 6 years and laid off over 200 people, and no one is hiring except for highly specialized positions such as engineering, etc.
We can’t afford to pay them those wages plus benefits anymore. They also get 5-10 sick days per year and can accumulate them and receive a separate paycheck when they retire for 20 to 30 years worth of sick pay. No one in the private sector can do that. I don’t know where you get the idea that your teachers work 16 hour days plus weekends. Our schools are open 8 hours daily with most teachers at home by 4:00 to 4:30 pm. They may correct papers etc. at home, but that is no different than business execs who bring home work for the next day. I used to work 15 hour days as a trucking manager in 2001-2004 for only $750 per week with no benefits until the company closed. I paid my family’s health, hospital, eye and dental bills, plus food, housing, gas, utilities and property taxes for 6 of us. My traveling nurse friend pays $600 per month for her families health care, and she is around $35,000 with no health care or paid pension.
Just a note. Bill gates was once a poor person, and he has provided lots of good jobs for microsoft employees. The young kid who started Facebook was very poor, and now his company is worth 50 Billion. He has provided how many thousands of jobs. You may not like some of their ruthless ways in building their empire, but who knows how we would act or respond in the same circumstances. We all live and learn. If you tear down the rich, your tear down us as well. We are all inter-woven together in this free enterprise system, unless you tear down the wealthy and arrest them, then a system like Russia will emerge that was born out of frustration of the lower economic classes who blamed the wealthy ( when “bloody” Czar Nicholous was the problem). They were for worker’s rights and became even more slaves to their new owners of State run businesses, the Communists, who are very active in the protests at Madison Wisconsin. Someone has to be in charge.
I am not scared of the rich. We have a number of millionaire owners in town who provide the bulk of local jobs. RR Donnely printing employs a large amount from $10 to $24 per hour plus benefits. They have provided the city with a lot of grants for city improvements, parks, kids baseball, Boys and Girls Club, and paid the entire water bill usage for our city, leaving residential water payments to be used for upgrades and employee salaries. The only war going on between rich and poor/middle class, is the war that we in the lower economic classes are waging. We accuse the rich, not because we are scared of them, but because they are easy scapegoats and we are jeolous that they are living just fine economically, while we are struggling to make ends meet. They are an easy scapegoat. I can start a company in town and employ maybe 5 people to start, as Bill Gates started out in his garage, and we both will be thanked. But let that company grow into a 50 billion dollar company and both he and I would be accused and become the greedy, wealthy rich, who don’t care about people, even though Microsoft employs hundreds of thousands of workers at very good wages, and Gates and his wife oversee a 170 billion dollar foundation that gives a lot of money to organizations to help the poor. We somehow believe that we are “entitled” to their money even though they took the risk with “their” money to start the company and grow it in the first place.
There are excesses in banks, businesses, and bonus pay for executives of bankrupt companies and wealthy people who exploit the poor, but we use that to justify our belief that they are all like that and deserve to be taken down. A young student at the Madison protests for workers rights said this, ” I work at a restaurant where I have no control. I have a dictator for an owner who tells me when my shift starts, what uniform to wear, what selection of food to serve, what tasks I must do, and how often I come to work. If the boss does not meet our non union worker demands for more control by employees, then we need to take over the restaurant and let the employees run it. That’s what workers rights are all about.”
Sound familiar? The Russian Bolshevik Revolution to oust Czar Nicholous II lead to a revolution for “workers rights to run the country” and ended up with State owned businesses. It lead to Lenin, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and many workers murdered; and fueled Hitler’s rise to power in Germany with a poor and middle class who were frustrated and easily led. The workers ended up with nothing and the power in the hands of a few. They were worse off than what they expected, and became even more of a slave to their communist masters. The same thing will happen here as we say, “We are struggling, look at the rich, they are the problem, give us their wealth.” That’s Jeolousy. The tax loopholes need to be closed when not needed, but both Democrats and Republicans create tax incentives in the form of lowered taxes for businesses, in exchange for job creations. Our city government does that too,especially when business taxes are high. Democrat president JFK lowered taxes on everyone, including business, when government revenues were low, and business owners used the money to expand their busineses and create new jobs, which meant more income taxes on these new jobs for the government and more revenues.
The wealth of business owners who once were poor, not only provides jobs, but you have the same opportunity to do the same thing. Wisconsin provides small new start-up businesses with up to 2 million in capital investments per business with taxpayer dollars to help you get started. They give you training in business plans, accounting, inventory, and management. Fred Clark, our Democrat state assemblyman gave a presentation of the programs available. Federal programs are also available.
Just set aside food and water for at least three months. When we can’t pay the interest on our debt, and our US dollar is so devalued through the US Treasury buying it’s own notes and printing more money to do so, then China will refuse to accept the US dollar in payment for our massive debt to her, and will ask for payment in Gold. That’s when our nation collapses and you will see empty store shelves, massive layoffs, $15 per gallon gas, looting of homes and businesses for food and clothes, freight trucks standing idle because it costs too much to ship to stores where people can’t afford to buy the goods, and food, gas, rationing and bread lines. Many economists are prdicting this if our government doesn’t immediately STOP spending. Do you realize what 14 Trillion dollars in debt looks like and how long to pay it back? We can’t do it in our lifetime or our grandchildrens lifetime.
We aborted and killed 50 million babies who could have provided more insight, invention and solved some of these problems, but we just got rid of them like they are trash. After 6 weeks in the womb, there is a heartbeat, blood flowing in the veins and brain waves, all signs of a living human being. If you don’t think they feel the pain of being murdered, think again. PETA and others say that animals have feelings and so do plants. Well, so do little innocent human babies who would have been valuable additions to the workforce and problem solvers. Some would be not so good, but isn’t that how it is with our current population too?
We really do create our own problems when we turn away from Jesus, the living God, and His word, and do what we want to do. That’s why Jesse Jackson got the Wisconsin Assembly, both Democrats and Republicans, to hold hands and pray.

Yeah, we might like each other. We would have to work through our differences though. (earlier comment)

My overall point is that the right of workers to CB should not be legislated away. Because of banking failures we should not prevent banks from operating. So too with CB. The failure of unions to be resposnible is not a reason to rid ourselves of CB.

Some organizations spew hate-filled messages but we don’t legislate away the freedom of speech. Why are we attacking the right to CB when we should be looking at legislation to regulate CB? Seems to me that are a number of ways to do that without snuffing out CB altogether with a system intended to strangle it over time.

Collective bargaining is not a right–it is a legislated privelage that can be legislated away . . . a right is something you are born with–life, liberty–not something one man can give to another. The constitution was drafted solely for the sake of limiting the government from infringing on our rights and freedoms.

Collective bargaining for public employee unions only guarantees that union wages and benefits will constantly increase. They don’t need the right to strike because they have the right to negotiate. Look up what Winston Churchill had to say about collective bargaining for PEUs. Also, don’t forget that virtually all public employees retirement pensions receive cost of living increases, a practice unheard of in the private sector.

The pendulum has swung too far in favor of public employees unions and the thugs who run them. It is time to curtail the power of PEUs, and this is just what has happened in Wisconsin. Let’s hope that the other states and the federal gov’t sees the light and evens the playing field between public employees and the taxpayers.

The phrase “collective bargaining” does not even appear in the butchered FDR quote in the blog.

What did FDR say about public unions and collective bargaining (that was conveniently left out)?

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations.”

The Wagner Act in 1935 excluded federal, state and local employees. Hmm…

Aaron while he did not include what he said he left out, I think it is pretty implicit in what he did quote that government workers do have some obligations but it doesn’t mean that public service workers should not have some way of airing their grievances or to bargain for what their pay is. In the quote taken from FDR, Roosevelt did not thing government workers should be allowed to strike. I would just like to remind everyone that FDR was referring to Federal Workers, because they are important to running the government. You certainly can’t infer that he meant city and state workers as well. I think that every state and city probably has a law that workers and firemen are not allowed to strike. I would not disagree that unions public or private can be too powerful. There is always going to be some tensions when it comes to bargaining. I am sure government entities are much like business in that business’s are certainly not going to show the unions what they are really making. While government is not for the most part in making money their should be transparency in what is taken in and what is being spent. That is what budgets are for. There are a lot of dead beat tax payers. There is so much money out there, that if it was collected it would help pay for public service workers. And don’t forget about all the tax breaks corporations and the rich get. At one point the highest marginal tax rate was 90 percent. The amount when the 90 per cent kicked in changed. You can find the history at the irs site. Corporations also paid more than individuals as a dollar percentage. Now everything is on the back of the individual. And no doubt republicans and democrats blow a lot of tax dollars mainly through paying back supporters for various projects.

Talk about taking things out of context! You eliminated (and replaced with ellipses) the following paragraph in the same letter:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”….. Interesting that you would underline the section that supports your argument but not the section that speaks to what conservatives are saying…. typical

Shame on you Zach Wisniewski for leaving out the key paragraph as stated above by others and doing the same thing that you are claiming someone else did. The hypocrisy is laughable.

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

“The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

“This obligation is paramount.

“Such action, (strike) looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Whether Roosevelt was pro or anti public sector unions depends on the definition of a union. He was clearly in favor of public workers uniting to express their grievances. But he clearly said it was “unthinkable and intolerable” for public sector workers to strike. So it sounds like the kind of union Roosevelt would have been OK with would function more like a lobby than a modern union.